Defendant
John Woodbury worked for plaintiff HCC Specialty
Underwriters, Inc. (“HCC”), a provider of
specialized insurance products for the sports and
entertainment industries, until June 2016, when he resigned
from HCC and immediately joined its competitor, Buttine
Underwriters Agency, LLC, d/b/a Prize and Promotion Insurance
Services (“PPI”). HCC brings this suit, alleging
that it had a non-competition agreement with Woodbury, of
which PPI is aware, and that defendants' conduct in the
face of that agreement gives rise to several contract and
tort claims. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint,
arguing that the non-competition agreement is unenforceable
and, therefore, HCC fails to allege a plausible claim for
relief. HCC objects.

Standard
of Review

Under
Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, construe reasonable inferences in
the plaintiff's favor, and “determine whether the
factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint set
forth a plausible claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772
F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). A claim is
facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009).

Ordinarily,
the court considers only the well-pleaded facts in the
complaint to decide a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993). In
addition, however, the court may consider “facts
extractable from documentation annexed to or incorporated by
reference in the complaint and matters susceptible to
judicial notice.” Rederford v. U.S. Airways,
Inc.,589 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The court may also consider matters
of public record and documents whose authenticity is not
disputed. Global Tower Assets, LLC v. Town of Rome,810 F.3d 77, 89 (1st Cir. 2016).

Background

The
complaint asserts the following facts. In 1996, John Woodbury
and HCC's predecessor, American Specialty Underwriters,
Inc. (“American”) entered into an
“Employment, Incentive Compensation, Confidentiality
and Non-Competition Agreement” (the
“Agreement”). Woodbury agreed that he would not
disclose any of his employer's confidential information
and would not use any confidential information on behalf of
any future employer. Woodbury also agreed that during the
term of his employment, and for a period of two years
following termination of his employment, he would not divert
or attempt to divert business from his employer, would not
interfere in any material respect with his employer's
business relationships, and would not provide services to or
have any interest in a person whose activities would violate
the non-competition provisions of the Agreement.

Woodbury
worked for American or its successors, including HCC, for the
next 20 years. In June 2016, Woodbury resigned from HCC, and
shortly thereafter, joined PPI. Since his departure, both
Woodbury and PPI have engaged in activities that violate the
terms of the Agreement, including attempting to divert
business from HCC, interfering with HCC's business
relationships, and setting up competing facilities. Woodbury
also accessed several confidential HCC documents prior to and
after his resignation.

Defendants
move to dismiss all five counts of the complaint, asserting
that the Agreement is unenforceable. They also assert that
even if the Agreement is enforceable, the CPA claim (Count V)
fails because employment disputes are private in nature and
are not, therefore, within the CPA's scope.

I.
Enforceability of the Agreement

Defendants
contend that Woodbury's Agreement was made with American,
not with HCC, and that HCC is merely an assignee of the
Agreement. Defendants assert that as an assignee, HCC cannot
enforce the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.